An American Wellspring: Concepts and Possibilities

[Alvah Hicks]

I, for one, am optimistic that scholars do not want to wait another 50 years and support Dr. German Dziebel efforts as Out of America will not compromise “the scientific method” if we but apply its principles. We must first agree to test its merits. Critical areas of human evolution remain in debate mode. No two bigger than the unresolved nature of both Native American and Old World modern human origins! That these two issues still remain unresolved might lead some to link them to one another. Let’s cut to the chase and accept that we have yet to resolve the most basic facts/truths as to why one species was replaced by another. Could looking only in the Eastern Hemisphere for explanations for the origins of our own species be the problem? Do we need to wait another 50-180 years to examine compatible evidence the Americas offers (a list of predictions is available on my website)? The following quote(s) suggest we have a problem in the first place. Accepting that we have a "crisis" is at the heart of looking for alternatives that both justify and remedy this dilemma. It is simply good medicine to look objectively at "Out of the Americas."

Willarmet, C. M., and G. A. Clark. Paradigm crisis in modern human origins research: Journal of Human Evolution (1995) 29, 487-490. 1995

"Despite the considerable efforts of many well-informed investigators, however, no resolution of the controversy is in sight. We think that the slow progress to resolution of the debate can be attributed to differences in metaphysical paradigms of modern origins researchers that in turn result in a biased selection of specimens and/or variables used in analysis. How selectively biased are researchers? An extensive literature review of published multivariate data invoked in support of "continuity" and "replacement" positions produced some dramatic results (Willamette, 1993, 1994). A total of 680 data points were collected, representing 61 variables on 55 fossils. Of these, only 72 variables on 11 fossils, or 11% of the reported database, were common to both paradigms This means that in the sample, 89% of the data collected were used by members of only one paradigm (p. 488)."

"Given the construal of the paradigm just outlined, theories (more accurately the hypotheses deduced from them), can only be confirmed or discomfirmed according to the tenets of the metaphysic (the construal of "reality" defined by the biases and preconceptions of the paradigm). Outside a particular paradigm, its constituent theories ("hypotheses") might appear nonsensical. Despite assertions to the contrary (e.g. Klein, 1989), the venerable history of the debate suggests that simply acquiring more data will not help us choose between opposing paradigms. The reason is that data have no meaning or existence independent of a paradigm that defines and contextualizes them. In light of the plethora of articles and books that have appeared in the last 10 years, it is worth asking ourselves whether we are any closer to solving the question of our origins than we were a century ago. If there is a lesson to be learned from the debate, it is that students of human evolution must begin to confront the inferential basis for their knowledge claims. So far, they have not been much concerned to do so. The result is an interminable debate, now well into its second century, with no resolution in sight (p. 489-489)."

NOTE: This is an older quote but a resolution is still wanting.

[Slips]

We simply need more archaeological work around coastal areas.

[Alvah Hicks]

Submerged Coastal sites may not be the answer if we cannot adopt a theory to accompany the ‘basal’ position pre-Clovis habitations entrust.

The emerging consensus of an earlier than Clovis occupation of the Americas can be founded in the indisputable archaeological signature recovered from Monte Verde level II in southern Chile, dated to least 14,500 y.b.p. This site has been painstakingly evaluated from the initial date of its discovery through 1997 when it was last visited by a team of researchers, many adamantly opposed to such a time depth for human settlement of the Americas. In the years following the 1997 National Geographic article describing this visit there has been a renewed effort, throughout the Americas, to examine previously discarded levels predating the end of the last Ice Age. These older levels have long been overlooked in the search for evidence of human habitation as funding and the original consensus has thwarted such efforts. Before Clovis Theory needs to focus on the shared characteristics of previously discovered pre-Clovis sites, newly discovered pre-Clovis sites, and Monte Verde levels I and II. Researchers need to draw into this relationship a new perspective suggesting that Monte Verde level II is in fact not evidence of a recent type of “settlement” but rather, distinct proof of a beautifully detailed pattern of human behavior that is exemplary of other much older pre-Clovis habitations. The basis for reevaluating Monte Verde II as more than just some part of an initial New World “settlement pattern” can be reconditioned when we accept, even theoretically, the significance of the 20,000 years separating it with its older relative, Monte Verde I (at 33,000ybp). Clearly, the time-span separating Monte Verde I and II would eliminate the more recent site’s classification as related to an initial “Peopling of the Americas”. Rather, it could represent an ongoing pattern of habitation distinctly conforming with a prolonged occupation of the area, and the Americas in general (Krieger 1964: Wormington 1957; and others).

Monte Verde II
Distinguishing similarities characteristic of the habitation dated to 14,400 y.b.p. can be drawn between it and Monte Verde I, 20,000 years earlier. Although the presence of wood, bone, and plant material is well defined at MV-II similar aspects relating to the settlement or, rather, continued occupation of the area might suggest conformity. That is, the nature of the Monte Verde I and II habitations could indicate a pattern of adaptation that would exclude certain behaviors found in later Paleoindian cultures. It is in understanding the abundance of archaeologically preserved features and artifacts that accompany the zoological and paleontological warehouse that is MV-II that a system of behavior is evoked. The later site seems to maintain more appropriate similarities then either would with Paleoindian-Clovis-like contexts. Similarly, the refinements found in later Paleoindian-Clovis Traditions would seem closely affiliated with Old World Paleolithic Traditions. From the outside looking in, it would be fair to say that Paleoindian-first model of human colonization has long stood in favor because it traces a specific relationship back to the Old World. This best explains why the Paleoindians have long been identified as the First Americans.

Contrarily, the mid-Pleistocene occupation of the Americas defies any now known or definable archaeological system outside of the Americas and has, as a result, been more difficult to distinguish, verify, establish, accept, and/or confirm. What remains are mammoth-sized difficulties in defining a paradigm to compliment the existence of the pre-Clovis. It is through deciphering the primordial nature of the human habitation from Monte Verde II, and comparing this with far earlier pre-Clovis sites (Monte Verde I, Pendejo Cave, Pedra Ferada, etc…), that we will find a paradigm to guide our observations. In adopting the concept of “an American wellspring” for Homo sapiens sapiens we can begin to resolve questions created by looking only to the Old World for explanations of what we should require of an archaeological presence. The significance encompassing human habitation before Clovis has much to offer if our human behavioral evolution can be linked to a pre-projectile lifestyle. We may have placed the cart before the horse by looking for how the Americas were “peopled” rather than the origins of our humanness itself.